Petitioners call in question the proceedings drawn and the orders passed therein, under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 1 Jashodabai is the wife of petitioner No.2 Girdharilal. Petitioner No.3 Laxminarain is their son. Certain lands situated at Ujjain and village Pandyakhedi which admittedly fell within the Urban area, formed part of two separate holdings owned separately by petitioner Jashodabai and Girdharilal. They both in the year 1978-79 had filed returns in respect of their respective holdings under Section 6 of the Act. Two separate ceiling cases were accordingly registered and proceeded with by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act. After usual hearing separate orders (Annexures P-6 & P-8) were passed declaring a part of their respective holdings as surplus land. Petitioner Jashodabai preferred appeal before the Commissioner. Ujjain, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.3.1985 (Annexure P-7). No appeal seems to have been preferred by Girdharilal. Petitioners seek to impugn the aforesaid proceedings and the orders mainly on two grounds; one, that the two holdings in question were in fact held jointly by the petitioner Jashodabai and Girdharilal and the Competent Authority could not have, therefore, initiated separate proceedings in respect of those holdings and for the purpose of declaring any part of those holdings as surplus, the entire land should have been treated as one holding belonging jointly to the petitioners; and two, that at the relevant point of time, petitioner No.3 Laxminarain, the son of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, was major aged about 23 years and was entitled to share in the holding for the purpose of computing as to whether or not the petitioners hold land in excess of the ceiling limit. It is pertinent to note here that both Jashodabai and Girdharilal had on their own filed separate returns under Section 6 of the Act, claiming sole ownership of their respective holding. At no point of time they made any prayer to the Competent Authority to consolidate the cases and treat the two holdings as part of one common holding belonging jointly to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be, therefore, now permitted to raise this plea and assail the impugned orders on that ground. At no point of time they made any prayer to the Competent Authority to consolidate the cases and treat the two holdings as part of one common holding belonging jointly to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be, therefore, now permitted to raise this plea and assail the impugned orders on that ground. As regards the entitlement of the petitioner No.3 Laxminarain, the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority have negatived the petitioners' claim to treat their son Laxminarain as major. From the proceedings, it appears that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were granted ample opportunity to lead evidence regarding age of their son. However, no such evidence was led by them. No document evidencing age of petitioner No.3 has even been filed with the present petition. The finding of the Competent Authority that petitioner No.3 was not major at the relevant point of time, cannot be, therefore, assailed. On this count also no interference is therefore, called for by this Court. As a last leg it was submitted that notwithstanding the impugned orders, the possession of the land in question still continues with the petitioners and so in view of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the entire proceedings now deserve to be quashed. This contention cannot be also accepted. The respondent-State has placed on record the two notices (Annexures R-3 & R-4) issued way back in 1984 and 1994, evidencing that notices for possession were given to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. The two Panchnamas of possession dated 8.4.1985 and 17.12.1999 have also been filed evidencing that possession of the surplus land has also been taken by the Revenue Authorities, pursuant to the orders passed by the Competent Authority. Affidavit of the Competent Authority is also filed in support of the Panchnamas. Although petitioners have filed counter affidavit claiming that the possession of the land still remains with them, however, the certified copies of Khasra (Annexures R-7 & R-8) clearly go to show that the land has vested in the State Government and the petitioners are no more shown in possession of that land. In any case, it is not open for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution to enter into detailed enquiry on this disputed question on of fact regarding possession. In any case, it is not open for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution to enter into detailed enquiry on this disputed question on of fact regarding possession. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after verification.